<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><br></div>Gentlemen, <br><br></div>This is a discussion which often leads to heated debates. The extreme views on this debate are summarized pretty nicely at this page, and connects right to "atheism" vs "religion":<br><br><a href="http://www.the-atheist.com/summarising-religion-and-atheism/">http://www.the-atheist.com/summarising-religion-and-atheism/</a><br><br>"Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to
nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating
everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself
for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned
into dinosaurs."<br><br>"Religion: The belief that there has always been an invisible man and the invisible man magically created the world and two people and these two people turned into billions of people and the invisible man threatened all the people with an eternity of torture unless they showered him with praise and built many things in his honor and the invisible man wrote a book through a ghost writer but the people change the book regularly so it means what they want it to mean. All this happened because the man was bored one day. Sounds reasonable."<br><br></div>I did some googling and found some interesting perspectives. <br><br></div>This article gives an in-depth perspective on the arguments back and forth. Too long to read, unless you're really interested:<br><br><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/09/why-the-big-bang-wont-work-won/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/09/why-the-big-bang-wont-work-won/</a><br><div><br>Just some quotes for your consideration. I have highlighted some parts which support the idea that the BB is considered to have appeared out of nothing, which has been said by Stephen Hawking, for example:<br><br><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)</a><br><br>The authors write:
“
Because
there is a law such as gravity, <b>the universe can and will create itself
from nothing</b>. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not
necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the
universe going.
”
<cite>— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, <i>The Grand Design</i>, 2010</cite><br><div><div><br><br><a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all">http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all</a><br><br>But science has had little to say about this ultimate question.<p>However,
in recent years a few physicists and cosmologists have started to
tackle it. They point out that we now have an understanding of the
history of the universe, and of the physical laws that describe how it
works. That information, they say, should give us a clue about how and
why the cosmos exists.</p><p>Their admittedly controversial answer is
that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the
star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, <b>popped into existence from nothing
at all</b>. It had to happen, they say, because <b>"nothing" is inherently
unstable</b>.</p><p>This idea may sound bizarre, or just another fanciful
creation story. But the physicists argue that it follows naturally from
science's two most powerful and successful theories: quantum mechanics
and general relativity.</p><br><a href="http://www.big-bang-theory.com/">http://www.big-bang-theory.com/</a><br><br>Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions<br>There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was <b>no explosion</b>; there was (and continues to be) <b>an expansion</b>. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.<br><br>Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, <b>space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang</b>. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the <b>Theory of Relativity</b> and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." <b>The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing</b>. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. <b>We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is</b>. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.<br><br><br><a href="https://www.quora.com/The-Big-Bang-In-the-beginning-did-nothing-explode">https://www.quora.com/The-Big-Bang-In-the-beginning-did-nothing-explode</a><span class="gmail-rendered_qtext"><br>By tracing the metric expansion backwards in time we reach a <b>singularity</b> at a specific point in time, <span class="gmail-render_latex"><span class="gmail-MathJax" id="gmail-MathJax-Element-1-Frame" tabindex="0"><span><span class="gmail-math" id="gmail-MathJax-Span-1" style="width:2.35em;display:inline-block"><span style="display:inline-block;width:2.102em;height:0px;font-size:111%"><span style="clip: rect(1.726em, 1002.08em, 2.777em, -1000em); top: -2.583em; left: 0em;"><span class="gmail-mrow" id="gmail-MathJax-Span-2"><span class="gmail-mi" id="gmail-MathJax-Span-3" style="font-family:stixgeneral;font-style:italic">t<span style="display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;height:1px;width:0.018em"></span></span><span class="gmail-mo" id="gmail-MathJax-Span-4" style="font-family:stixgeneral;padding-left:0.313em">=</span><span class="gmail-mn" id="gmail-MathJax-Span-5" style="font-family:stixgeneral;padding-left:0.313em">0</span></span><span style="display:inline-block;width:0px;height:2.583em"></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;vertical-align:-0.082em;border-left:0px solid;width:0px;height:0.899em"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="gmail-rendered_qtext"><span class="gmail-render_latex"></span>. We have solid evidence that the <i>observable</i> universe was in a hot, dense, plasma state at about <u>one second</u>
after time zero (when baryons like protons and neutrons, the
constituents of atoms, first appeared). Prior to that time there are
various speculations, and some evidence, but a great deal of uncertainty
as to what happened and what was happening in the wider universe.<br><br>It is important to note that the singularity itself is <u>not</u>
part of the Big Bang Theory. <b>Any singularity is an indication that a
physical theory breaks down and no longer applies</b>. At some point we may
have a refinement of General Relativity that produces a "quantum theory
of gravity" which might resolve this singularity, but <b>such a refinement
has stubbornly resisted scientists for half a century</b>.<br><br>It is also
important to note that <b>we do not know the overall size and shape (or
topology) of the universe </b>of which the observable universe is probably
only a small part. Our whole universe may be an insignificant expanding
bubble in a much larger entity that is not expanding overall, or the
entire larger entity could be expanding in the same way, or any of a
host of possibilities. <b>Including the possibility that (some version of)
'nothing' preceded the Big Bang</b>.</span><br><br><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br></div>Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br></div>Goor, The Netherlands.<br><br></div>Please note that I'm currently overwhelmed with e-mails. If you're interested in discussing science and/or physics, please consider subscribing to the mailing list I created for that purpose:<br><br><a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Thomas Goodey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas@flyingkettle.com" target="_blank">thomas@flyingkettle.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 20 Oct 2016 at 18:22, The Self-Called Master Inventor<br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> The Big Bang (BB) Theory violates all the major laws of<br>
> physics.<br>
<br>
The "laws" of physics are not supposed to have applied at<br>
the initial singularity, while the parameters of the<br>
universe were smaller than the Planck length.<br>
<br>
> The BB appears out of nothing<br>
<br>
Who said that?<br>
<br>
> - Violation of conservation of energy<br>
<br>
You don't understand the conventional BB concept.<br>
<br>
> This point of super hot energy begins to expand<br>
> - Why is it hot?<br>
<br>
It has no choice.<br>
<br>
> The BB is super massive and expanding<br>
> - Violation of General Relativity, it should form<br>
> a black hole.<br>
<br>
You don't understand the conventional BB concept.<br>
<br>
> The BB goes through a period of faster-then-light super<br>
> expansion<br>
> - Violation of Special Relativity, nothing can<br>
> travel faster than light<br>
<br>
You don't understand the conventional BB concept.<br>
<br>
> The expand ball...<br>
<br>
It's not a ball. It's a universe.<br>
<br>
> ... of energy starts to condense into hydrogen<br>
> gas<br>
> - Violation of atomic physics. It should condense<br>
> into the higher elements,<br>
> particularly iron which has the lowest energy<br>
> state, just like in a super nova.<br>
<br>
No, it shouldn't. You don't understand the conventional BB<br>
concept.<br>
<br>
Thomas Goodey<br>
******************<br>
<br>
But remember, please, the rules by<br>
which we live.<br>
We are not built to comprehend a<br>
lie.<br>
We can neither love, nor pity, nor<br>
forgive.<br>
If you make a slip in handling us you<br>
die.<br>
<br>
Rudyard Kipling, 'Secret of the<br>
Machines'<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>